You call this an 'achievement'?

Today the Islamic State is blowing up precious cultural monuments
in Palmyra, and half of all Syrians have been displaced — as if, on a
proportional basis, 160 million Americans had been made homeless. More
than a quarter-million have been killed. Yet the “Save Darfur” signs
have not given way to “Save Syria.”

One reason is that Obama —
who ran for president on the promise of restoring the United States’
moral stature — has constantly reassured Americans that doing nothing is
the smart and moral policy. He has argued, at times, that there was
nothing the United States could do, belittling the Syrian opposition as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.”

He has argued that we would only make things worse — “I am more mindful probably than most,” he told the New Republic in 2013, “of not only our incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations.”

He
has implied that because we can’t solve every problem, maybe we
shouldn’t solve any. “How do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been
killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being
killed in the Congo?” he asked (though at the time thousands were not
being killed in Congo).

On those rare
occasions when political pressure or the horrors of Syrian suffering
threatened to overwhelm any excuse for inaction, he promised action, in
statements or White House leaks: training for the opposition, a safe
zone on the Turkish border. Once public attention moved on, the plans
were abandoned or scaled back to meaningless proportions (training 50 soldiers per year, no action on the Turkish border).

Perversely,
the worse Syria became, the more justified the president seemed for
staying aloof; steps that might have helped in 2012 seemed ineffectual
by 2013, and actions that could have saved lives in 2013 would not have
been up to the challenge presented by 2014. The fact that the woman who
wrote the book on genocide, Samantha Power, and the woman who campaigned
to bomb Sudan to save the people of Darfur, Susan Rice, could
apparently in good conscience stay on as U.N. ambassador and national
security adviser, respectively, lent further moral credibility to U.S.
abdication.

Most critically, inaction was sold not as a necessary
evil but as a notable achievement: The United States at last was
leading with the head, not the heart, and with modesty, not arrogance.
“Realists” pointed out that the United States gets into trouble when it
lets ideals or emotions rule — when it sends soldiers to feed the hungry
in Somalia, for example, only to lose them, as told in “ Black Hawk Down,” and turn tail.

...

When Obama pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq, critics worried there
would be instability; none envisioned the emergence of a full-blown
terrorist state. When he announced in August 2011
that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” critics
worried the words might prove empty — but few imagined the extent of the
catastrophe: not just the savagery of chemical weapons and “barrel
bombs,” but also the Islamic State’s recruitment of thousands of foreign
fighters, its spread from Libya to Afghanistan, the danger to the U.S.
homeland that has alarmed U.S. intelligence officials, the refugees
destabilizing Europe.

Unfortunately, there are no longer any easy answers for Syria. Syrians are fleeing to Europe because they don't want to flee to Arab countries (looking at how the 'Palestinians' have been held hostage for more than six decades by their Arab brethren - including in Syria - they have no desire to follow suit) and because Europe is accessible and in some cases - notably Germany, but really all of them because of the Schengen visas - open. I don't expect this to end well. Germany is absorbing 800,000 Syrians, at least some of whom are likely to be Islamic State terrorists. But even if that were not the case, the sheer number of 'refugees' would likely change the entire character of the German population.

I'm not suggesting that the United States take them in either. I don't think that any country should take in large numbers of them. Perhaps they should be dispersed all over the world, but only after ensuring that they don't include terrorists. The sad reality is that they likely do.

Obama could have stopped Assad in his tracks four years ago. He could have supported the Nusra Front before it became radicalized. He could have left US troops in Iraq (which he dogmatically - there is no other word - insisted on withdrawing despite all indications of a resulting disaster), and thus prevented the rise of ISIS on Syria's border. Instead, he kissed up to Assad, insisting on sending an ambassador to Syria, all in the interest of the one foreign policy goal about which Obama has been consistent: Destroying the State of Israel. (God Forbid).

3 Comments:

The proper approach for the Syrian refugees could have been implemented by Obama, but that would interfere with emasculating Israel. Safe zones could have been established by Israel with or without American assistance. These zones could have extended to Damascus and beyond. But, no! Much better to have them leave Syria and cause crises in Europe and America.

It seems pretty clear from what Nonie Darwish has been explaining for years, as well as the follow on events, that choosing sides with the MuslimBrotherhood/12Imam types over the dictators doesn't make life better for the ordinary people. The vision more than two years ago of the al Nusra guy cutting out and eating the heart out of a Syrian military guy.. well. So to me the concept is to stop slaughters, as has been done in general since WWII. The Progressive Left, who think withdrawing and allowing slaughters to go on in the name of PEACE... it's a seemingly intractable mental illness. Neither side is someone to be chosen to support, but as Nonie said, people can survive the strong men, but not the jihadis. It's a horrible state of affairs. The militaries, mixed and matched, can stop slaughters.

Links to this post:

About Me

I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com